-
-
Replying to @brightstrangely @arthur_affect and
Sorry, I have to disagree. There was a spate of high profile U.K. libel cases in the mid-00s against science critics (see eg Simon Singh), and I think it’s naive to assume things have substantially improved since then. The U.K. practically invented libel tourism - thank our media
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nanayasleeps @arthur_affect and
That’s why I prefer the First Amendment. It’s ridiculously powerful.https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18780-simon-singh-wins-libel-battle-against-chiropractors/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brightstrangely @arthur_affect and
Also bad but in different ways, imo
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nanayasleeps @arthur_affect and
That’s a judgment on the effect. I’m saying that as a user, being denied those tools determines who is allowed to do good or bad.https://www.cjr.org/first_person/amazon-roy-price.php …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brightstrangely @nanayasleeps and
Marginalized people will always be victimized for speech no matter what so no matter how powerful the first amendment is it will only ever protect the most powerful people from consequences Because go figure it was born out of slave economy enlightenment ideals
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Nymphomachy @brightstrangely and
Eeeenh The First Amendment itself originally only applied to federal law It was up to the states whether they wanted to put similar protections in their own constitutions - northern states typically did and southern states didn't, in order to specifically ban abolitionism
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy and
The most famous flagrant violation of the First Amendment was John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts, sure But those were much more short-lived than most Southern states having official legislation against abolitionist newspapers
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy and
Hell during Jim Crow it was actually illegal in Mississippi to even advocate for equality, as I recall. Free speech, like many constitutional rights, is a wonderful thing, but liberal discourse around it is trying to *avoid having to take a side* on ideological correctness
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @loudpenitent @Nymphomachy and
Well sure but it isn't actually a closed question over whether these "meta" debates over legal principles are completely meaningless
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
If you really believe that laws are never enforced for the benefit of the marginalized and are always enforced for the benefit of the rulers then it doesn't matter what the law says one way or the other does it It could say anything at all
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
But most of us do think that, cynical Foucauldians as we may be, it makes a difference whether we live in a country that says freedom of speech is a universal right and one that says the state has a sovereign right to prevent and punish all forms of sedition
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
Lots of Chinese people fighting hard for the prize of US citizenship and the various guarantees that come with it, even at the potential cost of renouncing their PRC citizenship Not a lot of people going the other direction
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.